Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will know that, from this year when the BBC accounts are published, they will show the salary levels of all talent being paid more than £150,000. That is a welcome increase in transparency.

Martin Whitfield: Given the importance of the creative industries to East Lothian—a major film location for films such as “The Railway Man” and “The BFG”—and the money they bring to the local economy, will the Minister tell the House what discussions have been held with the Scottish Government regarding the impact of Brexit on the creative industries? What assurances can he give that the investment in the creative industries will continue after Brexit?

Matthew Hancock: I have every confidence that the creative industries, which are one of our great strengths rights across the country, including in Scotland—I was in Edinburgh on Monday talking to Creative Scotland and others—will continue to go from strength to strength, and we are determined to get a Brexit deal that works for them.

Paul Farrelly: Newspapers and the media are very much part of our creative industries, so as we leave the EU, could the Minister explain what the Department’s policy is on the future of section 40 and Leveson 2, both of which are very relevant to the industry as it, too, prepares for Brexit?

Matthew Hancock: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Conservative Members are strong supporters of the newspaper industry, and especially local newspapers, which do not need extra costs adding on to them by certain proposals. Given that we are such strong supporters of the newspaper industry, we have a consultation out on this issue, and I am sure he will look forward to the answer.

Toby Perkins: Mr Speaker, I am sure you will also join me in wishing Alex Ward, Jay Clarke and Marcus Willis well as they attempt to qualify for Wimbledon today, but professional tennis does not begin and end at Wimbledon, and the number of professional Futures tournaments in Britain has gone down from 23 in 2013 to just six last year. Does the Minister agree that the number of Futures tournaments is crucial to supporting British players to make it in the professional game, and will she join me in urging the LTA to have the number of tournaments that most of our European competitors do and to increase the number of tournaments for men and women next year?

Lisa Nandy: I very much welcome the Arts Council’s decision to increase funding outside of London, but the Minister must be aware that many brilliant institutions such as the People’s History Museum are primarily dependent on local authorities for funding. Will he consider following the Arts Council’s lead and give us back some of the money that has been slashed from local authority budgets, so that we can start to fund again some of this country’s most innovative cultural institutions?

Matthew Hancock: I absolutely understand the frustration of people running businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency and others. Getting access to high-speed broadband up to over 93% has been a big and positive task, but we clearly want to make it available to every premises in the country. That is why we legislated for the universal service obligation, and I look forward to ensuring that it happens.

John Bercow: On this question, I call Mr Alistair Carmichael.

Alistair Carmichael: On Monday we were all pleased to learn that the people of Northern Ireland are to benefit from another £150 million of investment in digital infrastructure, which is necessary for the development and growth of their economy and is welcome news. Then on Tuesday, we learned from Which?, the consumers association, that the poorest average connectivity speeds in the whole country are in Orkney and Shetland. When are we going to get our cash?

Karen Bradley: Since the last oral questions, the Department has lost an excellent Minister in Rob Wilson and I would like to publicly express my thanks for all his work. He is very sadly missed. We have, however, gained another excellent Minister, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I welcome him to the team and congratulate him on his stellar first performance at the Dispatch Box, which we have all just witnessed.
We are mid-way through a huge year for sporting events in the UK and I wish all British contestants well. I am sure all hon. Members will join me in wishing a very happy birthday to Britain’s biggest arts festival, the Edinburgh Festival, which turns 70 this summer. I will just check that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is not in his place before saying that I am sure all hon. Members will join me in wishing the British and Irish Lions well in their test at the weekend.

Alistair Carmichael: Research published by the campaign to cut VAT for tourism has shown how that could be transformative for this most crucial sector. Is this something the Secretary of State is discussing with her colleague,  the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If it is not, may I suggest that she start soon? This was not just something in our manifesto; it was also in the Democratic Unionist party’s.

Karen Bradley: We are determined that it will have exactly the opposite effect, but I will of course meet with the hon. Lady to discuss that.

Ian Murray: May I join the Secretary of State in wishing the Edinburgh international festival a happy 70th anniversary? There is no doubt that it shows that the United Kingdom has some of the best sporting and entertainment events in the world. What plans have the Government to control ticket prices, and also to ensure that the re-sellers market does not rip off ordinary fans?

Barry Sheerman: Many of my constituents would be surprised to learn that anyone who goes to Syria to fight in this way is not tracked or tagged when they get back. Also, is the Attorney General aware of the real concern about how many people slip in and out of this country on borrowed or forged passports?

Chris Bryant: The Government’s proposals, published this week, on non-UK EU citizens after Brexit suggest that they, and not British citizens, will need documentation to access to public services. In other words, that means an identity card for some, but not for everyone. How can that possibly be consistent with the European convention on human rights?

Jeremy Wright: We have to work through the practicalities. It will be important to understand how people demonstrate that they are who they say they are, but I do not accept that that will lead to a system of identity cards. The hon. Gentleman will recall that Conservatives in Government got rid of the Labour idea of having identity cards in the first place.

John Bercow: Order. Before we come to business questions, it might be helpful to the House if I announce my selection of amendments to be potentially voted on much later today. I have selected the amendment tabled by the official Opposition—amendment (l), if my memory serves me correctly, in the name of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John  McDonnell).
As colleagues will be intimately conscious, being fully familiar with all these matters, I have a right to select up to two further amendments under the terms of our Standing Orders. I can advise the House that I have selected amendment (d) in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others, and amendment (g) in the name of the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) and others. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming Business?

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I am not sure that she is aware that although she has allocated a debate on the Gibb report on Tuesday, there is a Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday at 9.30 am on the same report. I do not know whether that is a typo or whether she just wants to punish the Back Benchers.
I send the condolences of Her Majesty’s Opposition to all Scottish National party Members on the death of Gordon Wilson, who was their leader from 1979 to 1990 and was the Member of Parliament for Dundee, East from 1974 to 1987. We send our condolences to his family and friends.
It was a great get-together in the Chamber on Saturday, as Jo’s family and friends gathered together to unveil that beautiful plaque. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and your office for making it such a memorable day and all Members from both sides who turned up. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who organised the plaque. You were at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, Mr Speaker, and Brendan was right when he said that it was noisier during PMQs than when there are children in the Chamber.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Digital Service, who worked over the weekend to stave off the cyber-attack. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on restoration and renewal and will the Gibb report be debated on two separate days? Will she allocate the Tuesday to the Opposition?
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that he hoped that we would not be a cynical Opposition and that we would support him, but it is not the Opposition’s job to put sellotape on a minority Government. As “Erskine May” helpfully points out, the Opposition’s task is
“to direct criticism of the government’s policy and administration and to outline alternative policies.”
It is this Government who are unpatriotic and have caused uncertainty.
Let us remember that the previous Prime Minister resigned and walked away, that the current Prime Minister wanted a bigger majority and now has a minority Government, and that that minority Government are pulling in separate directions. First, a Minister says that the cap on public sector pay may be lifted, then No.10 refutes that. The Chancellor has to leave the country to set out his position because it is opposite to the positions of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Foreign Secretary. We on this side have an alternative: we will take the country’s result and turn it into a new relationship with the EU, in a new model that puts the economy, jobs, peace, security and opportunity for our citizens at its core.
That is Europe, but what about here? Local government finance faces uncertainty. The revenue support grant will be phased out in 2020, but the consultation on business rates ended on 3 May 2017. Given that the next Queen’s Speech will be in 2019, will the Leader of the House say how we will find out what the policy is and when we will scrutinise local government finance? Local government needs stability.
Two High Court judgments have overturned Government policy. The High Court has ruled that the benefit cap was unlawful; Mr Justice Collins said that it was causing “extreme hardship”. Some 20,000 children and many single parents have been hardest hit by this heartless policy. Irrespective of whether the Government will appeal, may we have an urgent debate on the judgment? When will the Government report back on the Cridland review of the state pension age?
The Government’s plans do not meet the court order to cut air pollution in the shortest possible time. Some 40,000 people die prematurely from air pollution. Do we not deserve time for debate on that failure of Government policy?
There has been nothing about fair funding for schools or how much will be available. During the election, a school governor told me that their school managed to stave off making a teacher redundant this year, but what will happen next year? A head told me that she needed extra funds because sometimes she cannot make room even for young people living on the same street as her school. When will the Government bring forward new proposals on the discredited funding formula? The Government have become a minority Government because they are so far removed from the reality of people’s lives.
You may not know, Mr Speaker—you will be busy next week as it is Wimbledon fortnight; you must be pleased that your deputies have been elected—but it is the 20th anniversary of the first Harry Potter book, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”. I suggest a new book—Harry Potter and the Magic Money Tree. The Opposition say to the minority Government, “Expelliarmus!”

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing what there is in the way of business for next week. May I say how grateful we are on the SNP Benches for the kind words that have been expressed about Gordon Wilson? He loved this place and I know that the words expressed here today will be a great comfort to Gordon’s family and friends.
What a meagre business statement this is. From a quick scan, it looks as though there will be no votes at all next week and, given that the Government secured a majority of only 14 last night, we can see why they will not regularly want to test the will of the House. They are already a zombie Government inhabiting a minority wasteland, unable to impose themselves or even to give the nation the relief of their just being gone. There is much to debate, primarily and particularly the grubby deal that has been stitched up with the Democratic Unionist party, which demonstrates the worst excesses of pork barrel politics. In fact, this deal would give pig-based receptacles a bad name.
You decided that I could not secure an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, Mr Speaker, but I would have thought that the Government would want to rush to the House to debate the deal. Members must be able to scrutinise, ask questions and debate what is going on. The deal turns the normal funding arrangements of the nations of the United Kingdom on their head. It is unbelievable that a deal of such significance and importance could be passed without any debate and scrutiny in this House.
We urgently need a debate on the role of the Scotland Office in all this. The Department is now run by a Secretary of State without a shred of credibility who has failed to stand up for vital Scottish interests. He says one thing about our funding arrangements under the Barnett formula one day and is contradicted the next. He is about as much use as Emu without Rod Hull. The Scottish National party will continue to fight for vital Scottish interests. After this week, we know that all the new Scottish Tories will be nothing more than apologists and Lobby fodder for this chaotic Conservative Government.

Andrea Leadsom: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. It is fantastic to see her back and I look forward to talking with her in the House. She raises an important point. I am sure the Education Secretary has heard her and will be keen to come to the House. Nevertheless, fairer funding for education carries the support of many across the education sector and it is vital so that all pupils get the same level of funding. That equality is key.

Tracy Brabin: This week it was announced that surgery for my constituents who smoke or who are overweight will be restricted—in some cases, for up to a year. Can we have a debate in Government time about the potential impact of this decision on my constituents’ health and mental health, and about the legacy of NHS rationing such as this?

Shailesh Vara: In recent days, there has been absolute misery for thousands of motorists in my constituency, which has been caused by work that is being carried out by Highways England. I wrote to Mr Jim O’Sullivan, the chief executive of Highways England, for an explanation, and it has taken a week for me to receive a standard acknowledgment letter saying that I will get a substantive response within the next 15 days, by which time the works will be over. Given that the decisions taken by Highways England impact on millions of people throughout the country, can we have a statement from the Transport Secretary as to whether this “couldn’t care less” attitude from Mr O’Sullivan and his organisation is an acceptable way to go forward?

Ellie Reeves: I was shocked by the complete lack of clarity on school funding shown by the Secretary of State for Education on Tuesday. The claim by the Leader of the House that the funding formula for schools is fair simply will not ring true in my constituency, where school budgets have been squeezed year on year and our fantastic boys’ secondary school, Forest Hill School, has a deficit of £1.3 million. Can we please have a proper statement and a debate on school funding before the summer recess?

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend raises a very important point in his constituency and I think it would be worth raising it in an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate. If he wants to write to me, I would be happy to take it up with the Department of Health.

Albert Owen: Will the Leader of the House provide some Government time for a statement on the development of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon? The project was omitted from the Queen’s Speech. She knows about it, and it is no use her blaming previous Energy Ministers or Environment Ministers, for that was she.

Andrea Leadsom: I accept my involvement in the Hendry review, which was designed to ensure that the Swansea bay tidal lagoon gets a fair hearing. That report has made its findings clear, and the Government are looking at it carefully. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the project would be a significant expense, but it also has enormous potential, so it is right that we should look carefully at its value for taxpayers’ money. A review is ongoing, and there will be a statement about it in due course.

Karen Bradley: I came to this House on 16 March to confirm that I had issued a European intervention notice in relation to the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky plc on the grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards. The EIN triggered a requirement for Ofcom to report—initially by 16 May but extended to 20 June—on the media public interest considerations and for the Competition and Markets Authority to report on jurisdiction. I issued a statement last week to confirm that I had received those reports and undertook both to publish them today and to come to the House to set out my minded-to decision on the next step in this process, which is whether to refer the merger to a fuller phase 2 investigation.
In line with my commitments, I am today publishing both documents, copies of which will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. I will also be publishing later today the letter to both parties with my decision, which I sent them this morning. Separately, Ofcom is today publishing its fit and proper assessment of the merged company. This reflects its ongoing responsibility as the independent regulator under the Broadcasting Acts to monitor who is fit and proper to hold a broadcast licence.
Decisions made by the Secretary of State on media mergers under the Enterprise Act 2002 are made on a quasi-judicial basis. I want to be very clear about what that means. When taking a quasi-judicial decision, I am tightly bound. I must take my decision only on the basis of the evidence that is relevant to the specified public interests. My decision cannot be based on opinion, speculation or conjecture. Any decision I take must be objectively justified by the facts before me. I must set aside wider political considerations going beyond the scope of the legislation. I must act independently and follow a process that is scrupulously fair and impartial. This is what I am doing.
On the question of whether the merger gives rise to public interest concerns in relation to media plurality, Ofcom’s report is unambiguous. It concludes:
“The transaction raises public interest concerns as a result of the risk of increased influence by members of the Murdoch Family Trust over the UK news agenda and the political process, with its unique presence on radio, television, in print and online. We consider that these concerns may justify a reference by the Secretary of State to the Competition and Markets Authority”.
On the basis of Ofcom’s assessment, I confirm that I am minded to refer to a phase 2 investigation on the grounds of media plurality. The reasoning and evidence on which Ofcom’s recommendation is based are persuasive. The proposed entity would have the third largest total reach of any news provider—lower only than the BBC and ITN—and would, uniquely, span news coverage on television, radio, in newspapers and online.
Ofcom’s report states that the proposed transaction would give the Murdoch Family Trust material influence over news providers with a significant presence across all key platforms. This potentially raises public interest concerns because, in Ofcom’s view, the transaction may increase the ability of members of the Murdoch Family  Trust to influence the overall news agenda and their ability to influence the political process, and it may also result in the perception of increased influence. These are clear grounds to warrant a referral to a phase 2 investigation, so that is what I am minded to do.
There, is, however, a statutory process that I must follow. I am required by legislation to allow the parties the opportunity to make representations to me on this position before I reach a final decision. I will now do that and have given them until Friday 14 July to respond.
The second question concerns whether, after the merger, the relevant media enterprises would have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. Ofcom is unequivocal. It concludes:
“In light of Fox’s and Sky’s broadcast compliance records and taking account of our separate assessment of whether Sky remains fit and proper to hold broadcasting licences following the transaction, we do not consider that the merged entity would lack a genuine commitment to the attainment of broadcasting standards. Therefore, we consider that there are no broadcasting standards concerns that may justify a reference by the Secretary of State to the Competition and Markets Authority”.
Ofcom’s approach sought to measure commitment to broadcasting standards by reference to breaches of regulatory codes. It found that Fox’s compliance with the UK’s Broadcasting Code is in line with comparable broadcasters. Nor did Fox’s compliance record in relation to overseas broadcast jurisdictions—where Ofcom’s analysis focused largely on the EU—give cause for concern.
I also asked Ofcom to consider the effect of any failure of corporate governance on this public interest consideration. Ofcom did this in the context of its separate assessment of whether Fox and Sky would remain fit and proper to hold broadcast licences following the transaction. It concluded that behaviours alleged at Fox News in the US amount to significant corporate failures. However, these did not, in its view, demonstrate that the merged company would lack a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. In reaching a view, I have to be guided only by the evidence before me. As such—based on the Ofcom report—I am currently minded not to refer to a phase 2 investigation in relation to a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards.
As required by legislation, I am giving the parties an opportunity to make representations in relation to media plurality grounds, where I am minded to refer for a phase 2 investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority. In the interests of transparency and of ensuring that all the evidence has been considered, I will also invite wider representations on the question of commitment to broadcasting standards, where I am currently minded not to refer for a phase 2 investigation.
Parties responding to the consultation should not simply duplicate any representations previously made to Ofcom. Instead, responses should be limited to setting out any new and substantial evidence and any comment on Ofcom’s overall approach. While there are strong feelings among both supporters and opponents of this merger, in this quasi-judicial process my decisions can be influenced only by facts, not opinions, and by the quality of evidence, not who shouts the loudest. The invitation to make representations will open today and close on Friday 14 July, and it can be found on the DCMS website.
Under the process set out in the Enterprise Act 2016, it is open to the parties to propose undertakings in lieu of a reference to the CMA for a more detailed investigation—in other words, the parties may seek to avoid a phase 2 reference by proposing remedies to address the public interest concerns that have provisionally been identified. The decision as to whether or not to accept undertakings in lieu is for the Secretary of State alone.
However, somewhat unusually, the parties proposed a set of undertakings to Ofcom, and Ofcom commented on them in its report. The proposed undertakings centred around Fox maintaining the editorial independence of Sky News by establishing a separate editorial board, with a majority of independent members, to oversee the appointment of the head of Sky News and any changes to Sky News editorial guidelines. They also include a commitment to maintain Sky branded news for five years with spending at least at similar levels to now. Ofcom’s view was that these remedies would mitigate the serious media plurality public interest concerns. It also suggested that the remedies could be further strengthened.
Last week, the parties—without prejudice to my decision today, which they only learned about this morning—formally submitted undertakings in largely the same terms to me. In accordance with the legislation, if I still intend to refer the merger after having considered representations from the parties, I am required to consider whether or not these remedies are appropriate. Given that the parties have offered these undertakings and that Ofcom have commented on them, I have taken an initial view. I can confirm that I have, today, written to the parties indicating that I am minded not to accept the undertakings that have been offered. While Ofcom suggests that they may mitigate its concerns, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether they sufficiently mitigate—or, ideally, fully remedy—what are serious public interest considerations.
I note that Ofcom’s report says:
“we recognise that behavioural undertakings can be difficult to monitor and enforce and that there are areas in which the proposed undertakings could be strengthened.”
It cites questions regarding
“the ongoing arrangements for the appointment of the independent members of the Sky News Editorial Board and the period of Fox’s commitment to maintaining its investment in Sky News”.
I also note the guidance of the Competition and Markets Authority, which, in the context of competition cases, says that undertakings in lieu are appropriate where the remedies are
“clear cut...effective and capable of ready implementation”,
and that, in ordinary cases, it is
“highly unlikely to accept behavioural remedies at phase 1”.
I have given the parties 10 working days—until Friday 14 July—to make representations on the minded-to decisions that I have reached. If I receive further offers of undertakings as part of those representations, I will keep the House informed about how I intend to structure the statutory process that I must follow when considering them.
As I have set out, I will now take representations on my minded-to positions. The call will remain open for 10 working days and I will then consider the evidence received before coming to a final decision on both grounds. To be clear, the minded-to decisions that I have outlined today are not my final decisions.
Before I close, I want to say a word about Ofcom’s “fit and proper” assessment. This is a matter for Ofcom, as the independent regulator, and my understanding is that it will publish its report today. I have seen the report and know that many Members in the House will want to comment on it. However, given my current quasi-judicial role in the merger, I will not be commenting on the findings. It is rightly not for Government to determine who should, and should not, hold TV broadcasting licences. Ofcom has an ongoing duty to ensure that all UK broadcasters are fit and proper to hold TV broadcasting licences. I am clear that if any evidence comes to light, it is for Ofcom to take account of that evidence.
I trust, as before, that this update is helpful to right hon. and hon. Members and that this statement gives an opportunity to debate this important issue while respecting the limits of what I can say, given my ongoing quasi-judicial role in relation to this merger. I commend this statement to the House.

Tom Watson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, albeit in redacted form, which, quite honestly, Mr Speaker, is utterly ridiculous.
This decision was delayed as a result of the unexpected general election campaign. I hope that the Conservative party found those weeks as productive as we on the Opposition Benches did, but nothing about this decision is a surprise. It is the old playbook. The Secretary of State has known all along what she wants to end up doing, but she has to follow the established dance steps, so let me make a prediction now. The parties have proposed some pretty minor undertakings in lieu. They always knew that they were not going to be enough to satisfy Ofcom, so the Secretary of State will demand extra conditions, as a result of which she will get written up as a tough operator. The parties will offer something new, which they always had in their back pocket, the Secretary of State will accept them, as she always planned, and this merger will go ahead.
Let me tell the Secretary of State the problem with Murdoch’s undertakings in lieu—not just these undertakings in lieu, but any undertakings in lieu that have ever been offered by the Murdochs. They are not worth the newsprint they are written in. Ask Harold Evans or James Harding about the guarantees of editorial independence at The Times and The Sunday Times. Can the Secretary of State name any undertakings in lieu that the Murdochs have ever made that have been respected?
If the current rules mean that James Murdoch can pass a fit and proper person test, given everything we know about his and his companies’ behaviour over phone hacking, and given everything we know about Fox’s behaviour over the ongoing sexual harassment scandal in the United States, that says more about the rules than it does about Mr Murdoch. It is clear that the rules need to be reviewed, and if the current Conservative government will not do that, the next Labour Government will.
This company has been found guilty of significant corporate failure, yet this bid process can still go ahead. In fact, over the next 12 months, the Labour party will  be reviewing media ownership rules in the UK, and let me put the media barons on notice: the days when citizens of other countries can dominate our media markets while paying their taxes overseas have to end.
The truth is, the world is changing and it is time the Conservative party realised it. We have seen what looks like an implicit bargain between the Conservative party and the Murdoch empire over recent years. The Conservatives would give Murdoch what he wanted—the Sky deal, stopping section 40, blocking Leveson part 2 —and Murdoch would deliver Theresa May the landslide victory she craved. Well, it has not quite worked out that way, has it? Rupert Murdoch has not delivered his side of the bargain, has he? His papers may have done their best to urge a Tory landslide, but he just could not follow through. He is not what he was. It was not The Sun wot won it. The country saw through him. The Sun told Britain: “Don’t chuck Britain in the Cor-bin”. Britain chucked the Tory manifesto in the bin instead.
Please let me give the Secretary of State some friendly advice: Murdoch was not any use to them. They do not need to be any use to him anymore. If I was speaking to the Minister outside the Chamber, I would say to her: “At long last, you’re free. You can do the right thing.” One way of signalling that freedom would be to go ahead and order part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Notwithstanding Ofcom’s fit and proper assessment, the only way to get to the bottom of the corporate governance issues that are at the heart of the decision is for the Secretary of State to hold part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. She should get on and order it now. She does not have a mandate to drop Leveson 2.
Meanwhile, let me ask the Secretary of State this. Given that this autumn James Murdoch is facing a civil trial in the High Court over new allegations of hacking and blagging at the Sun, and destruction of evidence, does she think that she could come out of this process with egg all over her face? How can the process possibly proceed with these cases hanging over them? Before she makes her final decision, will she guarantee to let the House know what the Prime Minister discussed with Rupert Murdoch at their private meeting in New York last year?

John Whittingdale: May I commend my right hon. Friend on the scrupulous way in which she is following the advice she has been given while giving the maximum opportunity for interested parties to comment at each stage? Would she also agree that the only thing on which the Opposition spokesman was correct was that when it comes to plurality, it is becoming increasingly obvious—and the general election bears  this out—that the printed press are a waning influence and the real media giants today are companies such as Google and the social media giants?

Karen Bradley: If I can take the hon. Gentleman’s latter comment about the fit and proper person test first, I think it would be extraordinary to be in a situation in which Government Ministers had any form of say over who held a broadcasting licence. It is right that that lies with Ofcom and if he has questions about the Ofcom process and its report, when he sees it, he should address those questions to Ofcom so that it can give him the comfort he needs.
The hon. Gentleman asks what undertakings I am looking for and, again, it is not for me to prejudge that. I have set out today that I am giving all parties 10 working days to come forward—that is, interested bodies that wish to make further representations on the matter of commitment to broadcasting standards and media plurality, as well as the parties themselves—on the matter of further undertakings they wish to make or other matters concerning my minded-to decisions. At that point, I will make a further decision.

Karen Bradley: If my hon. Friend looks at the Ofcom report, which should now have been published, he will see the consideration that was taken. One point of concern about the Fox-Sky merger is that the media company is unique among media organisations in having positions in broadcasting, radio, newsprint and online. He is right that we are in an ever-changing media landscape. We need to be cognisant of that when we are looking at how best to ensure that the public receive a wide and diverse range of accurate and fair news.

Karen Bradley: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not understand the process. In the process for the media merger, I have a quasi-judicial role to ensure that the public interest test in the Enterprise Act 2002, introduced under a Labour Government, is fully met and that media plurality—the issue that he raised—is dealt with. In terms of the fit and proper persons test, that is an ongoing test for the independent regulator, Ofcom, and I suggest that he refers his comments to it. On the commitment to broadcasting standards, many of the same issues are considered as for the fit and proper persons test, and he will see in the report exactly what Ofcom says. If he has further evidence and further substantive comments to make, I suggest that he makes them as part of that process.

John Bercow: Order. Just before we come to points of order—this is intended to be helpful to the House—I just mention that, a matter of only minutes before the intended resumption of the debate on the Queen’s speech, I observed that many, many hon. Members who have applied to speak in the debate are not currently present in the Chamber. I know the Whips are doing their best to ensure that that situation is addressed at once. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Lady is gesticulating from a sedentary position to indicate that she is present; there is nothing particularly unusual or unexpected about that, and we are most grateful to her for her presence. It is not necessary for everybody who is present to signal that he or she is present; I am referring to those who are not present. But it might be helpful to new Members, in particular, if I make the point that, although all sorts of things can change over a period, and very beneficially for Parliament—I am very keen on beneficial and progressive change where the case can be made for it—it is a very, very, very long-established convention and courtesy in this place that Members who wish to speak in a debate should be present for the opening speeches and hear them, and should also be present for the winding-up speeches. People should not just wander in when it is convenient to them; that is, frankly, disrespectful to other colleagues and to the House as an institution.  I hope that if there are now points of order of which I have, in response, to treat—this is not the purpose of the points of order—that will provide a welcome opportunity for people who have not yet arrived to scuttle their way towards the Chamber, and having scuttled their way towards the Chamber, they should stay in the Chamber.

John Bercow: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that this is something provided for, if memory serves me correctly, in the conventions and courtesies of the House. The traditional approach was that a Member—effectively, as was implied by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), a male Member—would be wearing a tie—[Interruption.] There is absolutely no obligation on female Members not to wear ties if they so choose. I think the general expectation is that Members should dress in business-like attire. So far as the Chair is concerned, I must say to the hon. Gentleman, although I fear this will gravely disquiet him, that it seems to me that as long as a Member arrives in the House in what might be thought to be business-like attire, the question of whether that Member is wearing a tie is not absolutely front and centre stage. So am I minded not to call a Member simply because that Member is not wearing  a tie? No. I think there has always been some discretion for the Chair to decide what is seemly and proper. Members should not behave in a way that is disrespectful of their colleagues or of the institution, but do I think it is essential that a Member wears a tie? No. Opinions on the hon. Gentleman’s choice of ties do tend to vary, and it has to be said that the same could be said of my own.

John Martin McDonnell: I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to end austerity in public services, to reverse falling living standards and to make society more equal; further regret that it contains no reference to an energy price cap and call on the Government to legislate for such a cap at the earliest opportunity; call on the Government to commit to a properly resourced industrial strategy to increase infrastructure investment in every nation and region of the UK; recognise that no deal on Brexit is the very worst outcome and therefore call on the Government to negotiate an outcome that prioritises jobs and the economy, delivers the exact same benefits the UK has as a member of the Single Market and the Customs Union, ensures that there is no weakening of cooperation in security and policing, and maintains the existing rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU; believe that those who are richest and large corporations, those with the broadest shoulders, should pay more tax, while more is done to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion; call for increased funding in public services to expand childcare, scrap tuition fees at universities and colleges and restore Education Maintenance Allowance, maintenance grants and nurses’ bursaries; regret that with inflation rising, living standards are again falling; and call on the Government to end the public sector pay cap and increase the minimum wage to a real living wage of £10 per hour by 2020.”.
As of this year, Mr Speaker, I have been in the House for 20 years, just as you have. Never in all that time have we seen such a threadbare scrap of a document as this Queen’s Speech. But let us be grateful for small mercies: it is a pleasure to note what has not been mentioned in this vacuous notelet. Despite their being promised in the Conservative manifesto, we have had no plans for legislation to end the triple lock, we have heard nothing about legislation to end winter fuel payments, and we have heard no legislative plans for the so-called dementia tax. There is nothing of the policy to take food from the  mouths of infants and young primary school children, and even the flagship grammar schools policy seems to have been ditched from the Queen’s Speech. I would therefore like to thank the millions of voters who rejected the Conservatives because they have prevented the Tories from implementing the full cuts that they promised. I thank all those people who called a halt to the barrage of cuts that the Tories were intending to introduce. Regrettably, the Government have instead been reduced to a grubby back-room deal in an attempt to cling on to office.
The result is that we have Queen’s Speech devoid of content which offers no solutions to the pressing issues facing our country. The Queen’s Speech says:
“My Ministers will strengthen the economy so that it supports the creation of jobs”.
The reality is that we are witnessing, to quote the Governor of the Bank of England, the weakest UK business investment in half a century, and the growth of insecure, low-paid, low-skilled jobs, with nearly 1 million people now on zero-hours contracts.

John Martin McDonnell: I would check the hon. Gentleman’s facts, but let me say—[Interruption.] I suggest he goes back to other Labour Governments who increased employment in this country as a result of direct state investment: the Attlee Government in particular, and the Wilson Government.
The issue for many of us is the quality of those jobs. The fact is that we now have people in employment who literally cannot fend off poverty. Two thirds of our children who are living in poverty are in families where people are in work. That is the quality of some of the jobs brought about by this Government.
The Queen’s Speech promises
“to invest in the National Health Service, schools, and other public services”,
but that could not be further from the truth. The reality is that spending per pupil remains set to fall, the jobs of police officers, firefighters, border guards will be cut, and the NHS is “already at breaking point” and has been promised no new money. Those are not our words, but those of the British Medical Association.
In various interviews over the past fortnight, the Chancellor has bemoaned the fact that he was hidden away during the election campaign and that his record on the economy was not the central plank of the Conservative campaign. I agree with him. I wish he had been more to the fore in the campaign, with his record more widely exposed, because if that had been the case, Labour would be in government now.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has been afforded his proper place in history. For those hon. Members who were not in this place 10 years ago, let me explain that prior to 2010, the Chancellor was the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In that role, as an ardent neoliberal, he was the architect of austerity.  It was he who designed the detailed economic programme rolled out by his mentor, George Osborne, after 2010, and he has been at the heart of every austerity Cabinet throughout this period.
In the Chancellor’s recent Mansion House speech, he referred to his Government’s austerity record as one
“of which we are proud.”
The foundation of the Chancellor’s record is its adherence to neoliberalism and trickle-down economics—a theory that argues that if we cut the taxes for the rich and the corporations, and if we turn a blind eye to tax avoidance and tax evasion, somehow the wealth will trickle down to the rest of society. This Chancellor has certainly cut taxes for the rich and the corporations. Corporation tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and the bank levy have all been slashed by this Chancellor. Independent analysis of Office for Budget Responsibility costings demonstrates that the tax cuts introduced by the Conservatives on those four measures alone since 2010 will have cost taxpayers more than £70 billion between last year and the end of this Parliament.

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Lady bears with me, she will hear how what we have done since 2010 has strengthened the fundamentals of the British economy. If she is asking me whether the decision the British people made last summer to leave the European Union—and the uncertainty that that has inevitably created as we negotiate our way out of the European Union—adds uncertainty to the economic equation, self-evidently it does. That is why we are seeking to progress the negotiations as rapidly as possible to restore certainty for business, investors and citizens as quickly as we possibly can.
Listening to the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition reading their election manifesto, it is clear that the Labour party has given up any pretence of a claim to fiscal credibility. Just two years ago, in the 2015 general election, Labour at least pretended that its figures added up. It would pay for its giveaways, so that its plans would not bankrupt the country. Not anymore. The current lot are clear that not only would they hike taxes, but they would embark on a massive expansion of borrowing and subject the country to a catastrophic programme of ideologically driven, productivity-sapping, investment-destroying nationalisation on a scale that the country has not seen since the 1970s.

Helen Whately: Is it not the case that if we are to have the public services that we want for our constituents, then we have to have a strong and growing economy? It is very simple.

Philip Hammond: If HMRC has negotiated a contract during purdah, it will have taken advice on whether doing that was compatible with purdah and will have received guidance from the Cabinet Secretary. It perhaps says something about the way that the purdah rules work that I was not aware of that until the hon. Gentleman just mentioned it, but I can assure him that HMRC will have taken proper advice.

Philip Hammond: I will in just a moment.
Then there is the nationalisation programme. Let me explain these plans, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they are important. The Labour party wants to nationalise gas and electricity, water and Royal Mail. They would borrow a fortune to do it, and it would deliver no economic benefit whatsoever.
First, a Labour Government would have to buy up the shares of publicly listed companies on the stock exchange. Taking over just the single largest company in each sector would cost close to £44 billion, and the Government would have to pay a market premium on top, because a programme to buy the shares would drive up the price. Moreover, the taxpayer would take on those companies’ debts; that is another £26 billion. So that is £70 billion of public debt. When the Labour Government were done with the publicly listed companies,  they would have to strike deals with scores of private investors and funds to buy the rest. All told, we are looking at more than £120 billion. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington says from a sedentary position, “You do not understand. It is a financial transaction, so it does not need any money, and it does not require us to go out and borrow any.” He is simply wrong. Financial transactions add to public debt—Interruption]—and that is before we even get to the railways, which he has been chuntering about. I have deliberately left the railways out of my equation, because his proposals for those are more complex.

Philip Hammond: I am going to make a little progress.
The truth is that the shadow Chancellor sees failure everywhere, while I see a fundamentally robust economy rebuilt from the ruins of Labour’s great recession. It is an economy that now needs to navigate successful transition out of the EU and into a deep and special partnership with our EU neighbours, and to realise the great potential of a technological revolution ahead, in which British universities and British companies will play a leading role.
I see a country that has achieved great things together since the last time Labour had its hands on the levers of power. In Labour’s last year in office, our economy shrank by 4.3%. In 2016, it grew faster than any major advanced economy bar Germany. Back in 2009, millions feared for their jobs and their futures. At that time, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington predicted that under our plan—[Interruption.] He should listen to this. He predicted that under our plan, unemployment would rise by 1.2 million as we suffered a double-dip recession and a decade-long depression. Since then, 2.9 million net new jobs have been created, our employment rate is the highest on record and our unemployment rate is at a 40-year low. In 2009, our deficit was at a post-war high. Since then, we have got it down by three quarters, while also taking 4 million people out of income tax in the last Parliament and cutting income tax for 30 million taxpayers, with the typical basic rate taxpayer paying £1,000 a year less income tax as a result.

Philip Hammond: As I have already said, if it were ever to look like the shadow Chancellor was anywhere near having his hand on the lever of power, I suspect that his programme, given what we know about his values and principles around the management of the economy, would lead to a pretty sharp rise in interest rates.
We must continue the job of getting our public finances back in order, over a sensible period of time, so that we are living within our means. The shadow Chancellor referred to the decision in my first autumn statement to push back the date on which we will reach fiscal balance. I made that decision to protect our economy during a period of uncertainty due to our exit negotiations from the European Union, therefore giving ourselves a little more headroom to respond should the economy need support. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that measure.
The only fair and sustainable way to fund better public services, higher real wages, and increased living standards—[Interruption.] I say to the Opposition Front-Bench team that that is absolutely not the way to do it. The only fair and sustainable approach is to increase economic growth through higher productivity. Our plan will support our public services and living standards.

Philip Hammond: Well, we are only one quarter into this year. I do not want to get techy, but the first quarter data is always subject to the largest revision, so let us wait and see. The OBR maintains its forecast for economic growth of 2% this year.

Kirsty Blackman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome to your seat—it is good to see you back there. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the SNP, but I am disappointed that none of our amendments were selected today. We set out in them our demand for the Scottish police and fire services to be excluded from VAT payments. We would also like the Government to halt the austerity agenda—[Interruption.]

Jonathan Edwards: The Tories also like to portray themselves as the party of the Union, but does the Barnett-bypass deal for the DUP not fundamentally undermine the case of this United Kingdom of pooling and sharing resources?

Caroline Spelman: I shall oblige you, Mr Speaker, by falling within the limit. I want to speak briefly about the way that the measures in the Queen’s Speech will contribute to the economic success of the west midlands, a region with a growth rate of more than 5% in the past two years. In fact, the growth rate of the borough of Solihull, containing my constituency, outstripped that of China at more than 7%--it is certainly an example of what the Chancellor called a fundamentally robust regional economy.
Without question, the stellar performance of the car industry has contributed to that success, but other branches of manufacturing have benefited as well. In turn, that has resulted in record low unemployment among the young people in my constituency. Some 6,000 of them have obtained apprenticeships, which has allowed them to benefit from some of the 100,000 new jobs that were created in the borough of Solihull alone since 2010.
The focus in the Gracious Speech is on an industrial strategy that will spread good practice, help to improve living standards and productivity, and ensure that the benefits of growth are shared. The manufacturing renaissance in the west midlands was boosted by regional growth funding, but the promise of the extra £23 billion for national productivity investment will boost it further.
The shortage of skilled labour in our region is holding back many young people from taking advantage of the jobs that are being created across the area. So I am delighted that the second pillar of the industrial strategy puts the emphasis on skills. The inclusion of a new system of technical education will benefit some of the 50% of youngsters who do not go to university, helping them to get well-paid jobs by learning STEM subjects, which employers value so highly.
On the council estate in my constituency a new engineering academy has opened and there is a new campus for my college of further education, which has two new streams of apprentice engineers for automotive and aerospace. I had my preconceptions challenged when I visited it because I found that the engineering apprenticeship students were 50:50 men and women. And I do mean women. Many of them had missed out on their education while they had their kids, and had come back to secure a qualification that would obtain them a well-paid job. They explained to me that the night shift in the car factory was a good solution to fitting work round their family responsibilities. They get back home to take their kids to school, get a bit of kip, get up again, pick their kids up from school, give them tea, oversee their homework, then their mum comes in and sleeps overnight.
It might surprise the House to hear, and I set the challenge to a visiting Secretary of State, just how much someone can earn as an experienced car production worker. The salary can be £60,000 a year, which allows someone to get a mortgage for the average house price in the west midlands of £183,000. One of the women said to me, “I can earn much more like this than stacking the shelves in a supermarket.” That for me is a clear example of aspiration. In time we will definitely reduce income inequality and change lives for the better through education-led regeneration. It is small wonder that Solihull College has been awarded a gold rating by the teaching excellence framework.
In my role as Second Church Estates Commissioner it is my job to link up what happens in both Houses of Parliament. I would like to share with the House what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in his contribution to the Queen’s Speech. He saw the importance of sharing growth across the whole economy. The Church of England is well placed to help; it is the largest provider of primary education. He sees it as particularly important that we raise the standards of education in schools, to give children all over the country the opportunity to take up the kind of jobs that I have just described.
As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for inclusive growth, I believe that the current rise in populism internationally reflects the challenge that Governments in all advanced industrial nations face in tackling the impact of globalisation. So I welcome the Government’s commitment to raise the living wage and the impact of raising the tax threshold, which has lifted so many people out of paying tax altogether.
There are new challenges on the way, with the digitisation of the economy, and we will need to demonstrate that technological progress can support rising living standards for all. My concern in listening to the shadow Chancellor is that the success of regions such as the west midlands would be put at risk by his plans if they ever became a reality, and that is why I am a supporter of this Queen’s Speech and the architects of our economic success.

Ed Miliband: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman).
The Queen’s Speech debate after a general election is a chance to reflect on what we heard during the election. That is particularly important given the result we have just seen. Let us be honest across the House—we were all a bit gobsmacked by the result. Jon Snow went on television the day after the election and said, “I know nothing”, and I think that probably applies to many  of us.
Having heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has departed, I am bound to ask, “If it is all going so well, why did it go so badly?” In other words, the result did not exactly meet Conservative expectations. I believe that there is a deeper explanation. It has been said that many people have
“a sense—deep, profound and let’s face it often justified—that…the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them.”
Those are not my words but the words of the Prime Minister in her party conference speech.
If we look at the remarkable turnaround that took place during the election campaign, we can blame the social care policy, we can blame the Prime Minister, but I think it is deeper than that. The tide is going out on a certain way of running the country—large inequality, the next generation seeing their chances diminish, and permanent austerity. The crucial point about the campaign—I think Conservative Members know this—is that the Prime Minister who stood on the steps of Downing Street as the agent of change became the agent of the status quo. The reality is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party became the agent of change. That is why we saw the change that we did in this election.
The question about this Gracious Speech is whether it shows that the Government understand the lessons of the election campaign. Listening to the Chancellor, one would think that it had all gone brilliantly and the Conservatives had got a landslide majority, as they had planned. They did not. I look at the Gracious Speech and I ask this question. Does it include an attack on the burning injustices that the Prime Minister promised in her words in Downing Street? Is there the transformation in life chances that she promised? Is there a determination to stand up to the most powerful as she promised? The answer, to coin a phrase, is no, no, no. We do not see any of that in this speech.
I want to make some positive suggestions about how Members across the House, working together, can rectify the gaps in the Queen’s Speech, and I will make three in the time I have. The first—it will not surprise hon. Members to hear me talk about this—is on energy prices. I do not normally read The Sun—people might recognise that, but on 9 May I read something that caught my eye. It said:
“I am making this promise: if I am re-elected on June 8, I will take action…by introducing a cap on unfair energy price rises…It will protect around 17 million families.”
That is brilliant, I thought. That is my policy, more or less. It was from the Prime Minister. Then I look at the Queen’s Speech—where has it gone? Where is the price  cap legislation? All we have is a consultation and a letter to Ofcom—a U-turn on the U-turn, which happened yesterday as well.
Let me put it this way: 84% of people supported parties with a price cap in their manifesto. Not a soft cap but a hard cap. It was proposed by the Labour party and the Conservative party. So let us do it. I welcome the intervention by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) in the Queen’s Speech debate when the Prime Minister spoke.
Secondly, the Prime Minister says that she cares about insecurity. Zero-hours contracts may have started under the last Labour Government, but let us be honest about the situation. The number has gone from 168,000 in December 2010 to 900,000 by the end of last year. If we care about insecurity, it is unfathomable that we are not acting on this. We heard it from our constituents on the doorsteps. We heard that sense of insecurity; it is part of the explanation for the result of the general election.
Thirdly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about corporation tax. We have cuts in corporation tax still to come that will cost £5 billion over the next few years. If there is no magic money tree, is it really the priority that Apple, Starbucks and other companies should pay 17% tax when ordinary families in Britain pay 20%? Why? Where is the fairness in that? Where is the sense of tackling the burning injustice that the Prime Minister talked about?
I want to end on this thought. Ever since 2015 I have stopped believing opinion polls—people will not be surprised to learn that. I make an exception in the following case, which is not about voting intention. I was reading the newspapers on 9 May, and people were asked by Ipsos MORI whether they thought that the country was rigged to the advantage of the rich and powerful—76% of people in Britain agreed and just 16% disagreed. The question for all of us, whether we like it or not, left and right, is what is our answer to that. For my money, the next election will be decided by who has the compelling vision to meet that desire for change. On the evidence of this Queen’s Speech, the Government have no answers and it will be up to Labour to provide them.

Liam Byrne: It is an honour to follow such a brilliant maiden speech. The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) represents one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country and was a great credit to it this afternoon. She betrayed her grasp that all politics is local; she quite clearly has her eyes set on making a significant contribution to the national debate, with all the benefit of her life experience.
I want to speak in support of the amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, but given that we all find ourselves in a new hung Parliament, I first want to  set out four or five areas in which it should be possible for us to work across the House on some shared challenges in the years ahead. I want to pick up where my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) left off by discussing the surging levels of inequality and injustice in this country, which are contributing to such instability in politics not only in our country, but across the western world.
The Opposition have talked for some time about the challenges faced by what we used to call the squeezed middle, and the Prime Minister has talked about the challenges confronted by just managing families. It pleases no one in this House that working families are something like £1,400 a year worse off than they were before the crisis. The Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor were absolutely right when they pointed their fingers at the core of the problem: the challenge of productivity bedevilling our economy. The fact that the rest of the G7 can finish making on a Thursday night what it takes us until the end of Friday to get done will hold us back from having rising living standards, unless we get things sorted. The level of productivity growth in our economy is worse than it was in the late 1970s, when we used to call the problem the “British disease”.
While there are four or five areas in which we can make significant progress, there was very little reference to them in the Queen’s Speech. If we are to become a richer country, we patently need to become a smarter country. Unless we spend more on science and on research and development, it will be impossible for our economy to become more productive. We spend just 1.3% of GDP on research and development, which is well behind the 2.3% spent across the rest of the OECD and the 3% spent by economies such as Germany, South Korea and Israel, which all have significant manufacturing sectors that are bigger than ours. The Government set out a long-term target for 2.3%, but they should be more ambitious and we should be debating now how we lever in more private sector investment through good public sector investment, safe in the knowledge that public investment crowds in private investment.

Heidi Allen: I rise to speak on this final day of the Queen’s Speech debate and will start by showing my appreciation for the news that we will now pay for abortions for women from   Northern Ireland who come to England to have them. I thank the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for helping to make that happen.
Although our Prime Minister called the general election with honourable intentions—I believe that she felt it would allow her to enter Brexit negotiations with the strongest hand possible—our campaign displayed what I have feared for a while: the gap between people’s lives and the lives of decision makers in here has grown too wide. We failed to convey the message of empathy and compassion that the Prime Minister so emotively displayed in her first speech outside No. 10. We failed to demonstrate the determination and optimism for this country that are inbuilt in Conservative DNA.
Knocking on doors, I asked my constituents to put their trust in me—and they did, for which I am very grateful. I also promised them that I would make sure that my party did not veer too far to the right and that their concerns would not be disregarded. They—and I—want affordable housing, decent school funding, an NHS and social care system equipped to deal with our ageing population, a secure post-Brexit economy, an outward-looking, globally collaborative country and a welfare state that supports the vulnerable. The heartbreaking thing is that I know that we can and will deliver all of that; we want all of that, but we did not demonstrate a positive vision of how we would deliver it.
This party must change. We must put people at the heart of everything that we do. We must listen and build our policies from the ground up, be flexible, dynamic, modern, collaborative and, above all, compassionate. Financial and economic competence is not enough. I want a Conservative party that people want to vote for rather than a party that they feel they have to vote for. That is also the Conservative party that this country wants, too. Right now, we are a long way away from that, but we have said that we have listened and that we will learn.
One of my unswerving goals since becoming an MP has been to change how people feel about politicians. I want an honest, transparent, collaborative, respectful and positive kind of politics. I can barely put into words my anger at the deal that my party has done with the DUP. We did not need to do it. I cannot fault the DUP for wanting to achieve the very best deal for their residents of Northern Ireland, nor for their tough negotiating skills, but I must put on record my distaste at the use of public funds to garner political control. We should have run with a minority Government and showed the country what mature, progressive politics looks like. The only comfort that I can take is knowing that people in Northern Ireland will benefit. This must never again be how this Government prioritises spending. This is not the way to begin that journey of change.
I have thought long and hard about how to vote on this Queen’s Speech, for a Back-Bencher’s vote must be earned, just as those of our constituents are earned. A vote is not given unconditionally. The voice in my head shouting louder than this anger is the knowledge that, although there is so much we need to do to change, the Conservatives remain the only party capable of leading and delivering what this country needs to prosper. Labour’s policies would lead to economic ruin. Its Christmas list of free-for-alls would see business running for the hills  as fast as its overtaxed legs could carry it, taking jobs with it. Uncontrolled spending and penalising business is never the answer, but it is not enough to expect voters to believe us—we must show them that this is the case.
We must keep creating well-paid and secure jobs, because that is the heart of everything. We must build even more affordable and council homes. We must properly fund our welfare state to support the vulnerable. We must carefully release those public purse strings to lift the pay cap where we can for nurses and those on the frontline of our public services. We must respond to the financial challenges in our schools and the NHS and fund them. We must also be unafraid to look at how we tax higher earners and, yes, the triple lock on pensions.
We must all put party politics aside and work cross-party to find a solution for social care, to find the right path to Brexit and security for EU nationals living here. We must do all this and more to regain the trust of the electorate, and that is what I hope Conservatives will do.

Jo Churchill: It is an immense pleasure to talk about the economy in today’s Queen’s Speech debate because before I entered the House,  only two short years ago, my day job was creating jobs. We need to remember that our local economies are driven by people’s confidence in creating jobs, particularly in small businesses, which have not been spoken about much today.
Bury St Edmunds is a great place to do business with a thriving small business sector that is outpacing the national average. The Conservative party’s job is to drive quality jobs. I welcome this Queen’s Speech to inspire entrepreneurs—I have been employing people—but the shadow Chancellor’s picture was one of gloom, high tax, borrow and spend. That is not the right way to deliver jobs in any economy. Bury St Edmunds is in the top 20% of economically active constituencies and it reflects a sound economy.
The UK employment rate is nearly 75%. Unemployment is 4.6%—the lowest since 1975—but 690 people in my constituency do not have a job. We need to get them one. We are here to create the right environment and opportunities, and to break down barriers so that everybody can show their talents and abilities. The number of women in work is at an all-time high, which is to be celebrated, but the number of women-led firms is not high enough. We need to work hard to ensure that more women lead firms and become the entrepreneurs of the future.
The Government’s commitment to further progress on narrowing the gender pay gap is welcome, as is our lead on the national living wage. We must be attuned to something that the Labour party often is not—that wage costs are often the highest costs for a business. It is often the case that the more a business raises wages, the lower its profit margin and, therefore, the lower its corporation tax return. All the talk saying that everything can be solved by corporation tax rises is nonsense. We must have an eye to what we force businesses to do. A constituent of mine in her early 60s said, “Please do all you can to stay in power for the next year to give lots of people job security.” She is paid only just about the national living wage but she says that she would rather earn that in a steady job than be on jobseeker’s allowance. She said that she is not poor and she is not the rich elite, but she looks to us to provide security.
We need to ensure that the climate is right and that people have the right skills so that employers and employees thrive. I am pleased that the industrial strategy is bold and follows growth. It is good that we should invest 2.4% of GDP in research and development. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) said in her excellent maiden speech, we need to look to the future, not back to the past. We need to ensure that we actually inspire when we see opportunities, such as in our further education colleges. I want West Suffolk College in my constituency to be one of the leading institutes of technology, driving opportunity and connecting business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) said, strong entrepreneurial leadership from our local enterprise partnerships, councils and colleges will drive prosperity.
We have a positive economic message. We want a thriving economy. I do not want our children paying off our debts. I want them to own houses, have great jobs, raise families and have careers.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I know that I am against the clock, so I will be as quick as possible, but I want first to thank all Members who have taken part today. In particular, I thank those who have given their maiden speeches: my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Gerard Killen), and the hon. Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I know that they will make their mark on this place over the years to come.
The Queen’s Speech was sadly threadbare, evading all substantial questions of policy and doing nothing to undo the failed economic policies of the past. Lest we forget, this was the Government who told us seven years ago that we were all in this together—that unleashing excruciating financial pain upon people, public services and businesses, and allowing our once proud industrial communities to be sent into managed decline, while slashing taxes for the wealthiest, was a necessary evil and that we would all be better off in the end. However, we now live in a Britain where the top fifth receive 40% of total income, while the poorest fifth earn only 8%—a Britain reliant on foodbanks and, as the Bank of England cites, with “worrying levels of rapid consumer credit growth” among those borrowing simply to make ends meet, and it is set to get worse. As we have heard from the IFS,
“earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007”,
based on current forecasts.
The UK has one of the highest levels of regional inequality in Europe. Fifty-four per cent of future transport spending is due to take place in London, by comparison with the north-east, which will receive only 1.8%, and  the picture is no better when we look at income inequality. For example, people in London earn £134 more a week than those in Yorkshire. So what have the Government set out to rebuild our fractured economy? Their industrial strategy Green Paper was criticised by the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy this year, which stated that it lacked clarity and political will. Sadly, the Government compounded such criticism by simply inserting the abstract words “industrial strategy” in the Queen’s speech, like some sort of game of rhetoric bingo.
The Queen’s Speech went on to state that the Government
“will work to attract investment in infrastructure”.
Again, there were no details. I am afraid that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy might be in for a shock, as the Governor of the Bank of England stated yesterday that Britain has experienced the
“weakest…business investment in half a century”.
Frankly, it is not surprising, when the Government have done little to foster a fertile business environment. Simply slashing the headline rate of corporation tax alone does not constitute creating a good business environment. Businesses need high-quality infrastructure, both physical and digital, but public investment has been woeful.
Businesses also need a highly skilled workforce, but the Government have cut real-terms school funding, scrapped the education maintenance allowance and imposed huge cuts to further education funding over the past seven years. Businesses also need long-term stability, not huge hikes in business rates—relief for which has still not materialised, months after the event—or what is, quite frankly, a reckless and dangerous approach to leaving the EU. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that the letter of support for the Conservative party from business that usually materialises a few days before polling day did not materialise this year.
Vaguer still was the notion that ministers will
“seek to enhance rights…in the…workplace.”
This Government have eroded workers’ rights over the last seven years, with the TUC stating that the number of those in insecure work has risen by 27% in the last five years. If the Government were really serious about improving workers’ rights, they would ban zero-hours contracts, repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 and abolish employment tribunal fees.
Even more vague is the position on energy prices, as illustrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). Staggeringly, in one of the richest nations in the world, we have over 4 million people living in fuel poverty, so I was pleasantly surprised when the Prime Minister called for Labour’s energy price cap to be implemented. This was from a party that scoffed in 2015 that the policy was from a “Marxist universe”, so even I was flabbergasted by this apparent damascene conversion. The Queen’s Speech, however, was completely silent on that commitment, amid reports that senior Cabinet members and the big six energy companies were lobbying for the price cap to be dropped.
Britain stands at a crossroads, and Members of this House have a grave choice to make. Do they choose the Government’s path, which leads to more economic  stagnation, falling wages, deindustrialisation and people being held back by economic insecurity at work and at home, or do they choose Labour’s amendment, which sets out the change that Britain needs? That is a path that would rebuild and transform the British economy with an industrial strategy that would invest in regions and nations, and would provide the support that businesses desperately crave. It is a path that recognises that redistribution is not enough, and that job quality and work satisfaction also matter. However, it is a path that the Government refuse to take, and, as they hang on to office precariously by the tips of their fingernails, they are quite simply standing in the way of a fairer, richer Britain.

Philip Hollobone: I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving me permission to hold this important debate on the Floor of the House, because Kettering general hospital is perhaps the No. 1 issue for local people in Kettering.
This year, Kettering general hospital celebrates its 120th anniversary. It is one of the few hospitals that has been on the same site for 120 years. It is a much-loved local hospital. Thousands of local people have been born there, repaired there and, sadly, died there. Everyone has a special place in their heart for the hospital.
Some serious issues, however, need to be addressed. I welcome the Minister of State to his place to hear those concerns and respond. I am very grateful to him for making a personal visit to the hospital in April to meet the staff, including doctors and nurses, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who I also welcome to their places in the Chamber. The Minister’s personal attention to Kettering general hospital is noted and much appreciated.
I thank all the staff at the hospital—the nurses, the doctors, the ancillary staff, the managers and the directors—for the wonderful work that they do. It is a massive team effort, with almost 4,000 people working on the site. There are just short of 600 beds in the hospital, and tens of thousands of patients go through the doors every year. Indeed, that is one of the issues that I want to remind the Minister about. Kettering general hospital is located in one of the fastest-growing parts of the country. In the last census, Kettering was sixth out of 348 districts for growth in the number of households and 31st for population increase. Just down the road, I believe Corby has the highest birth rate in the whole country. Thousands of houses are being built each year in Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough, in east Northamptonshire and over the border in Market Harborough, which means that there is growing pressure on the hospital.
The local population is not only growing in size but ageing rapidly. It is wonderful that we are all living longer, but the number of people over 75 in Northamptonshire is likely to go up by 33% in the next five years from 54,000 to 72,000. People over 75 bring with them a wealth of experience, but I think most of them would admit that they are not as young and fit as they used to be, and they require increasingly detailed medical interventions, often for multiple issues rather than just one. That is a real challenge for the hospital to get to grips with.
In the past 10 years, the number of in-patient consultant episodes in the hospital has gone up by 27%. Attendances at the accident and emergency department have gone up by 23% in the past five years, and some 83,000 people a year are now coming through the A&E, which was built 20 years ago to cope with an influx of 40,000 people a year—less than half the number who currently visit. Out-patient attendances at the hospital have risen by almost two thirds in the past 10 years.
Local people increasingly say to all three hon. Members from the area, “We love our local hospital, but what new investment and new facilities are being provided so that it can cope with the growth in the local population?” I ask the Minister that question directly this evening on behalf of those residents.
Our clinical commissioning group is still one of the most underfunded in the country. This year it crept up to 5% below the target funding. It has been worse in the past, but it is still pretty bad. Will the Minister urge those responsible to ensure that health funding is prioritised in areas of rapid population growth such as north Northamptonshire? Without that, we simply will not be able to cope.
The car parking situation at Kettering general hospital is critical, as the Minister experienced at first hand when he was caught in the traffic jam outside the hospital on his visit. It is good news that there will be 240 new spaces in the car park by the end of this November, and although that problem is difficult to fix, it is relatively straightforward compared with meeting the medical needs of the growing local population.
I must stress that, as the Minister will know, the hospital is now in special measures, which is not a happy situation. It is the result of a Care Quality Commission inspection in October, after which the CQC gave the hospital an “inadequate” rating in November, triggering the special measures. There have been a series of unannounced and focused inspections since—I think the last one was yesterday—and we await further news on when the CQC anticipates the hospital might come out of special measures. I welcome the special measures provisions provided by the Department. It is absolutely right to make sure that a hospital in some difficulty receives special attention. If that requires it being labelled “special measures” then so be it, but we must provide the help and assistance that such hospitals need.
It is not all bad news at Kettering general hospital. We must remember that it is treating a record number of local people with increasingly world-class treatments. It is hitting all its cancer targets. Its infection control, having some years ago been the very worst in the country, is now extremely good. The A&E target, which has been among the bottom 10 in the country, is now rapidly improving. I hope that figures to be announced soon will show that it is in the top third of type A A&Es.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Corby would agree with me that one of the key priorities at the hospital is the provision of an urgent care hub. This is a fairly simple concept that requires something like funding of £20 million to £30 million. The idea is this: to have on one site, at Kettering general hospital, a one-stop shop for GP services and out-of-hours care, an on-site pharmacy, a minor injuries unit, facilities for social services and mental health care, access to community care services for the frail elderly, and a replacement for the A&E department, which, as I have said, is now more than 20 years old. Those services in a one-stop shop urgent care hub on site would enable the rapid assessment, diagnosis and treatment by appropriate health and social care professionals. Patients would be streamed into appropriate treatment areas to minimise delays and reduce the need for admissions. This is an example of best practice across the NHS and it is what we would like to see introduced at Kettering to relieve pressure on clinicians in the A&E department.

Philip Hollobone: As so often in this place, my hon. Friend speaks words of great wisdom and insight. He represents his constituents extremely well in repeating that point. The current draft sustainability and transformation plan for Northamptonshire is simply not good enough, because it does not place enough emphasis on developing the facilities my hon. Friend is speaking about. Effectively treating people nearer to where they live so they do not have to come into Kettering general hospital makes sense. It would be better for the patients, it would mean that they received more appropriate treatment closer to home, it would be more cost-effective and it would relieve pressure on Kettering general hospital. I therefore urge the Minister, with the contacts he has with NHS England, to pay close attention to the development of the STP in Northamptonshire, which is not good enough yet. It needs to place more emphasis on primary care, urgent care centres and local facilities, as my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and for Wellingborough have both mentioned.
The A&E department at Kettering general hospital is under huge pressure, the bulk of which comes from the lack of bed space. Ninety-eight per cent. of people who  present at Kettering A&E with minor injuries are seen within the target, while 96% of those who are not admitted to the hospital are seen within the four-hour target. However, somewhere between only 60% and 90% of those who require admission to the hospital are hitting the target. The problem is the number of beds occupied by people whose treatment has been completed but who have not yet been moved to rehabilitative or local social care.
There have been problems with that in Northamptonshire, which I have raised before on the Floor of the House. However, I am pleased to say that I understand that closer co-operation between the hospital and the local county council is likely to mean that the better care funds allocated by the Government will be used more effectively, so that people can be moved more quickly out of the hospital and into more appropriate care in their local communities. This is an urgent priority, but I understand that we are about to see some rapid improvement.
Having said that, even if Kettering general hospital does everything right, I have to tell the Minister that I am being told that it has a structural deficit of £10 million a year. That means that even if it does everything right and meets all the targets that the Government set, the way that the health service is structured in Northamptonshire means that it can do no better every year than to have a deficit of £10 million. In 2015-16 the deficit was £11 million and in 2016-17 it was £25 million. This year it is likely to be £20 million, so things have clearly not worked as they should have, but I have to tell the Minister directly that even if everything worked right, there would be a structural deficit of £10 million, which is clearly not sustainable. That needs to be looked at.
There has recently been a problem with referral to treatment targets. In the past, waiting list data have not been recorded correctly at the hospital. Everyone is agreed about that, and I am pleased that the Care Quality Commission is investigating and has referred the matter to NHS Protect. I think everyone agrees that the data are now being collected correctly, but historically they have been inaccurate, and patients may have been harmed as a result. I therefore ask the Minister directly whether he is satisfied that the issue is being investigated appropriately and that the investigation will be concluded as speedily as possible, so that local people can get to the bottom of what has been a historical problem.
Kettering general hospital is perhaps the most important facility to local people in Kettering. I know that it is important to my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Corby as well, and we will not let any opportunity go by in this place without reminding Her Majesty’s Government how important the hospital is to local people. All is not well with the hospital, and these things can be put right. There has been a problem of the chief executive changing too often. We have lost some good people and replacements have not stayed for too long. The Minister has met Fiona Wise, the acting interim chief executive, but she will not be there for too much longer, because a more permanent replacement is being sought. There have also been leadership issues at the hospital in the past, which we need to tackle. The chairman, Graham Foster, is doing his level best—I commend him for his efforts—and there is tremendous  team spirit at the hospital. It got extremely good marks in the CQC inspection for the quality of the care that all staff provide to local patients.
All is not well, however, and we need the Minister’s continuing attention to ensure that we can address the issues involved. In particular, will he urge NHS Improvement to prioritise its analysis of the urgent care hub proposals? I understand that NHSI, which used to be called Monitor, has now approved the funding for the preparation of the business case for the hub. That is likely to be submitted to NHSI in September, and I hope that it will be at the top of its in-tray so that we can get a move on with a project that everyone—the Government, the hospital, the patients and the CCG—agrees is the key development that needs to take place if we are to continue the distinguished history of a hospital that has been going for 120 years.

Philip Dunne: Let me start by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your resumption of your rightful place in the Chamber. It is a delight to serve under you in what I think is the first Adjournment debate that you have chaired in the new Parliament. I am delighted that you are looking after our proceedings this evening.
Let me also join in the congratulations of all who have spoken in the debate—apart from his usual modest self—to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who has been so gracious in encouraging me to take a personal interest in the hospital in his constituency. He was forthright in inviting me to join him last year when we previously debated the hospital, and I was pleased to be able to take up his invitation. Invitations have been flowing around the Chamber once more this evening from his neighbours, who show a consistent and collegiate approach to managing health issues in their constituencies and Northamptonshire in general.
When I visited Kettering in April, I was delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) taking such a close interest in the primary acute facility serving their constituents. I feel that the area is well represented by its Members of Parliament, who take such an active interest in health.
One thing that disappointed me about the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering was the fact that his detailed grasp of the issues confronting the hospital was almost as good as that of the officials who helped me to prepare my speech. I therefore may not tell him too much that he does not know already, but it is a tribute to his perspicacity that he has such a good grip.
My hon. Friend raised a number of detailed issues relating to Kettering general hospital, and I shall try to address as many of them as possible in the time that is available to me. He concluded his remarks by making it clear that his No. 1 priority was to see progress on securing funds for the development of an urgent care hub at the hospital. I am pleased to join him in welcoming the progress that has been made since our debate last October. In particular, the foundation trust has secured funds from the Department of Health, with agreement from NHS Improvement, to enable the production of  an outline business case, which, in the NHS approval system, is a necessary precursor of any significant capital investment.
A mobilisation meeting was held only last week to discuss the preparation of the outline business case, which is a welcome development. The initial draft of the outline business case is expected to be shared with NHS Improvement in August. The current intention is for the trust board to approval a final outline business case by the end of the year, provided that it is satisfied with the progress that has been made, before a formal submission is made to NHS Improvement. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some idea of the pace of the process. I am talking about a period of months, but I am afraid that that is the nature of the world we are in. It must be ensured that all appropriate internal procedures are followed correctly in order to give the proposition the best prospect of success.
The business case is intended to create a long-term solution for the hospital: a 10 to 15-year proposition that will take into account the significant increase in house building envisaged in the local plans, and the accompanying population growth to which my hon. Friend referred. In the meantime, the trust has put in place as a temporary facility a modular unit—a Portakabin —which we visited a couple of months ago. The outline business case will include plans to replace it with a permanent structure in due course.
More immediately, I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the solution to the current challenge, which was very evident to me when I visited, that faces staff and patients trying to gain access to the hospital. The challenge of finding somewhere to park for anyone arriving by car was such that I had to be plucked out of the queue waiting to get into the car park by the chief executive herself, who had come to find me. Otherwise I might have spent my entire allotted time for the visit trying to get into the car park. The good news, as my hon. Friend has identified, is that work begins next week on the construction of the second level of the car park. The additional tier will provide an extra 240 spaces. I am told that the work will be completed by mid-November, which sounds like pretty pacey progress. This will cost some £1.3 million over five years, and the funding has been found by the trust from its own resources, which is very welcome.
My hon. Friend made reference to various pressures affecting the hospital. NHS England is working closely with the two local clinical commissioning groups to ensure that local care homes, general practices and the ambulance service are supported to care for patients outside the hospital, when that is appropriate. That is designed to help to reduce pressure on the hospital, and it was referred to in the interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and for Wellingborough.
In the longer term, the draft Northamptonshire sustainability and transformation plan, which was published last December, proposes an early focus on improving the urgent care system to reduce the pressures on A&E. Part of that will include introducing more front-door clinical streaming at Kettering general, with plans to put in place a seven-day discharge capability to help patient flow through the hospital. However, I have heard the comments in this debate about the quality of the STP, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. The STPs are being assessed by the  Department of Health, and we will be making some comments before the summer recess on their relative attributes. We will see where Northamptonshire comes out in the context of the others.